A proposed meeting of foreign ministers from Ukraine, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, scheduled to take place in London today, has been cancelled following a diplomatic impasse over a contentious American peace initiative aimed at halting hostilities between Ukraine and Russia.
The Ukrainian government has unequivocally rejected what was described in Kyiv as a “capitulatory” draft proposal originating from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. The document reportedly demanded that Ukraine accept a number of far-reaching concessions, including a ceasefire, direct negotiations with Moscow, the renunciation of its NATO aspirations, and formal recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
According to a report by The Washington Post, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cancelled his participation in the London meeting at the last minute, citing scheduling conflicts. However, diplomatic sources suggest the true reason was frustration over Kyiv’s refusal to engage with the U.S.-drafted plan. Rubio is believed to have taken particular issue with what he perceived as Ukraine’s unwillingness to even enter into discussions.
The proposal, which was to be debated and potentially endorsed during the now-cancelled meeting, was to be delivered to Russian President Vladimir Putin by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. Ukrainian officials reportedly rejected the proposal before any multilateral talks could commence, effectively derailing the process at an early stage.
According to The Telegraph, the draft proposal stipulated the following conditions:
- Immediate Ceasefire and Direct Talks
The plan’s first component calls for an immediate ceasefire between Ukrainian and Russian forces. It also proposes direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow. President Volodymyr Zelensky is said to have accepted this in principle. - Ukraine to Refrain from Joining NATO
Ukraine would be required to abandon its pursuit of NATO membership. However, the plan would not prevent Kyiv from joining the European Union. This point aligns with a long-standing Russian demand and is reportedly welcomed by Vladimir Putin. - Freezing of Current Front Lines and Territorial Concessions
The plan would effectively freeze the war at current front lines, allowing Russia to retain almost all the territory it has seized since February 2022. While two small areas would return to Ukrainian control, the majority of occupied territory would remain under Russian authority. Crimea would receive formal US recognition as part of Russia, while the other territories would receive implicit recognition. - Transfer of Key Areas to Ukrainian and US Control
Ukraine would regain access to the mouth of the Dnipro River and one area of Kherson province. Additionally, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—currently under Russian control—would be transferred to American control rather than returned to Ukraine. - No Binding US Security Guarantee
The plan offers no formal US security guarantee to Ukraine. While it allows for a potential European “assurance force” to deter future aggression, there is no American commitment to support or guarantee such a deployment. This falls short of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s stated position that any European presence would require a US backstop. - Minerals Deal for US Companies
Ukraine would sign a deal granting US firms access to its natural resources. The specifics of this arrangement have not been disclosed, but the agreement is a formal component of the peace proposal. - Sanctions Relief and Renewed US-Russia Cooperation
All US sanctions on Russia would be lifted under the final point of the plan. It also opens the door to renewed cooperation between Washington and Moscow in areas such as energy. This would represent a significant policy shift in the US-Russia relationship.
Ukrainian officials characterised the proposal as a clear breach of international law and an affront to Ukraine’s sovereignty. A senior source in Kyiv stated that no such agreement could be considered without substantial security guarantees, none of which were included in the draft.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reiterated that Ukraine’s constitution explicitly enshrines both its sovereignty over Crimea and its Euro-Atlantic integration course. Any deviation from these positions would require a national referendum, which analysts suggest would overwhelmingly reject the proposal.
From the Russian perspective, observers note that the Trump initiative does not appear to address key demands voiced by the Kremlin, such as an end to Western military support for Ukraine or limitations on the size and capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces. These omissions are seen by some analysts as likely to render the offer unappealing to Moscow, notwithstanding its favourable provisions.
Diplomatic commentators point out that the Trump administration may now face a difficult choice. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has warned that if both Ukraine and Russia dismiss the current initiative, Washington may withdraw entirely from the peace process. However, it remains uncertain whether the White House would follow through with such a move, particularly in light of strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in the U.S. Congress.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have recently introduced legislation aimed at intensifying, rather than easing, sanctions on Russia. Senator Lindsey Graham has claimed that 55 senators from both parties back a tougher approach, suggesting that any White House attempt to scale back military assistance to Ukraine could meet significant resistance.
The situation has once again placed President Trump at the centre of a geopolitical controversy. Critics argue that the plan, far from facilitating peace, may embolden Russia while undermining Ukraine’s strategic position. Others point to inconsistencies within the Trump administration, noting that the proposed settlement would likely fail to satisfy either belligerent party.
The outcome of the London non-meeting may serve as a symbolic marker of the wider limitations of current U.S. diplomacy in the conflict. With only limited influence over Moscow and growing friction with Kyiv, Washington’s capacity to shape events appears constrained.
In practical terms, the cancellation leaves the European powers — notably the UK, France and Germany — in a position to reassess their own strategies, though without active U.S. participation, few expect meaningful progress. Britain’s Defence Secretary is expected to make a brief appearance at the downgraded meeting today, while Ukraine will be represented by its ministers of foreign affairs and defence. U.S. participation is reportedly limited to special envoy Keith Kellogg, who has been sidelined from recent high-level decision-making.
The collapse of the initiative is likely to harden positions on both sides of the war. For Ukraine, the rejection of the U.S. proposal is being interpreted domestically as a political victory and a reaffirmation of national red lines. For Russia, the absence of key demands may limit the plan’s utility. And for Washington, the failure marks another setback in a conflict where the White House’s leverage appears to be diminishing.
Read also:
Ukraine Peace Talks in London Downgraded Amid Diplomatic Uncertainty
